Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: Rumor of Light Sport Weight Limit Change

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,036

    Rumor of Light Sport Weight Limit Change

    On the Pilots of America forum page, they're reporting a tweet from AOPA Editor-in-Chief Tom Haines that says the FAA will be issuing a NRPM in January to raise the Light Sport Airplane weight limit...to 3,600 pounds!

    https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/comm.../#post-2611186

    The obvious reaction is that this is a typo; that the actual limit will be 1,600 pounds (which will get the Cessna 150, but not the 152, in play). However, someone says that Haines has confirmed the 3,600 pounds.

    Obviously, OTHER light sport limits will still exist. Probably still required to be fixed gear, my guess is that they'll keep the two-seat limit (though may change it to just a occupant limit, rather than a seat count). The current light sport rules do not allow STC'ing a design to qualify, but we'll have to see if that changes as well.

    Ron Wanttaja

  2. #2
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,036
    I like this picture that someone posted with the above thread....


    Have to say I'm skeptical....

    Ron Wanttaja

  3. #3
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,036
    Looks like the FAA *is* looking at 3,600 pounds.

    "Baker invited Jack Pelton, EAA chairman and CEO, onto the stage. On Jan. 19, 2019, Pelton said, the FAA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks to raise the weight limit for light sport aircraft from the current 1,320 pounds to 3,600 pounds. “That will allow you to fly in a 172, have four seats in the airplane, and fly 150 mph,” said Pelton, who also anticipates a rule change that would allow professional builders to construct experimental amateur-built aircraft."

    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...bondale-fly-in

    It's sounding like the speed limit is going up, and that more than two seats will be allowed.

    This is an apparent upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), it wouldn't be going into effect for quite a while.

    Ron Wanttaja

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    NE Suburb, Twincities MN
    Posts
    29
    Thanks for the update and link. How long do you think 'quite a while' is? Several years?, five years? Just wondering.

    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post

    This is an apparent upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), it wouldn't be going into effect for quite a while.

    Ron Wanttaja
    Last edited by Kim; 10-07-2018 at 04:07 PM. Reason: clarity
    EAA 745 - White Bear Lake MN

  5. #5
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    Thanks for the update and link. How long do you think 'quite a while' is? Several years?, five years? Just wondering.
    The NRPM will include a comment period, generally about 90 days. They'll have to assemble the comments, de-conflict them, and come up with a modified version of the original proposal. Then the new rules will need to be coordinated within the government, etc.

    I'm guessing the whole process will take a minimum of one year, possibly two.

    Also, there's speculation that the "3,600 pounds" may have been a botched metric conversion. 1650 kilograms is about 3600 pounds; if the original value was 1650 POUNDS, someone may have assumed kilograms and run the conversion to 3,600 pounds.

    1650 pounds makes far more sense, as it will allow both the 150 and 152 into the Sport Pilot limits.

    AvWeb is saying 3,600 pounds....

    https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-231639-1.html

    ...and claims it's from a "high FAA source." But if their source is a same bad-at-math FAA guy AOPA is using, that would explain it.

    Ron Wanttaja

  6. #6
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    454
    There has been quite a bit of talk over the past six months or so about possible rumored maybe someday LSA changes. If they're just talking about 152-class weights, then yeah, 1650 would do it and would also include a WHOLE LOT of airplanes that really don't make sense to not be included in LSA rules. Like Champs at 1450 GW, that sort of thing. It would still (inexplicably, IMHO) exclude others like Super Cubs and the like.

    If you're aiming to include 172/PA28/AA5 class airplanes, then you'd have to up it to 2500 or so. 3600 would include a whole lot of airplanes not usually found within the envelope you'd expect for even an upgraded Sport Pilot type set of limitations.

    Other changes would be needed to accommodate an awful lot of these planes, of course. Number of seats, probably stall speed, bump up cruise speed a little. There are planes that aren't LSA simply because of max gross weight, like upgraded Champ types, some later Ercoupes, etc. Lots of others -- even the 150/152 -- would require other changes to the limitations, like stall speed and cruise speed.

    From what I hear, the NPRM will include a bunch of changes other than just gross weight. The big question is, will any of it actually happen during our lifetimes? NPRMs come and go and get mangled and watered down and buried in bureaucracy. I'm mildly hopeful, but I'll believe any of it when I see it actually published as a new change to the regulations.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Fort Vermilion Alberta
    Posts
    172
    Ya'll sure know how to complicate things. See us Canucks do it a lot simpler. I am an ultralight instructor, easy to get and I can teach in anything. Long as it has some type of lifting surface and doesn't weigh more than 1280 lbs. Even something called a basic ultralight, kind of like what you call an ultralight but can weigh 1200 lbs and can go as fast as you can make it go. Simple.
    Another is the Owner Maintenance Category, if an airplane is out of production, and what isn't, it can be "de certified" into what for all intents and purposes is a homebuilt. A few restrictions but who is watching. Only restriction on OM is fixed gear and fixed pitch prop. Simple.
    It sounds like the new weight restriction if it ever gets thru the millions of borocrates in your FAA will be like our OM, except the devil will be in the details. Who will inspect and maintain the new heavy LSA? OM is signed off by the owner. Simple.
    Our ultralight license is simple, 5 hrs dual, 5 hrs solo, have to do at least 10 solo ricochets to get signed off. You can immediately take off with a passenger, provided they are also a pilot. Wanna take your neighbours kid for a ride you need 25 hrs PIC and take another ride with an instructor. Simple. Fly anywhere in the country even class C if you can talk to the gov't guys in a way they understand. Wait,,,,our gov't guys aren't gov't guys. They work for a private not for profit company which costs me around forty bucks a yr for all the services they provide. Simple.
    Canucks, a bit simple,,,,but what the heck.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    939
    Ray, can you please come here and explain that to the leaders here in the so called "land of the free"?

    Or, I think the FAA should just let U.S. pilots print out an "exemption card" to use Canadian rules.

  9. #9
    robert l's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Heath Springs, S.C.
    Posts
    305
    Hey Ray, you said ya'll, cool. My first U/L, an 18 hp Nomad Honcho only had a CHT and that's it. I don't know why it had that, we never looked at it !

  10. #10
    Mayhemxpc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia
    Posts
    614
    Great thread, now WAY off the original topic, but...

    When I used to teach at the CAP National Flight Academy, I would cover up all the instruments except the tach and have the student pilots fly vertical S's, turns to headings, etc. (It was Wisconsin, road grids are effective compasses.) The students were amazed that they could do it. They were all microsoft flight simulator aces, so the challenge was to get them to look outside rather than fixate on instruments -- which, after all, are indicators and not direct measurments (especially in pre-glass Cessnas).
    Chris Mayer
    N424AF
    www.o2cricket.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •